因为这架飞机出事时机相当凑巧，正值乌克兰政府军战局不利之际，第24摩步旅、第72摩步旅、第79空中机动旅三个旅的有生力量被东乌克兰民兵合围而无法冲出，这场空难引起的政治军事连锁反应是否会导致东乌克兰战局逆转?
为马航遇难者致哀!得知遇难者中还有我们的同胞，更感哀痛。不清楚此次空难究竟如何发生，不知道究竟是哪方打下飞机的，不抱预设立场，不掺和围绕这个问题的口水争吵，静候调查结果。但我相信飞机被击中的地方应该不是目前发现残骸地点的上空，因为这架飞机是在万米高空从西向东高速飞行，若被导弹击落，由于惯性作用，残骸不会是垂直落地，而是会呈抛物线从西向东抛出一段距离后落地。因此，飞机被击中的地方至少应该是在飞机残骸落地处往西几十公里上空。
这场空难最大的潜在影响应该是对东乌克兰战局的影响，因为这架飞机出事时机相当凑巧，正值乌克兰政府军战局不利之际，第24摩步旅、第72摩步旅、第79空中机动旅三个旅的有生力量被东乌克兰民兵合围而无法冲出，这场空难引起的政治军事连锁反应是否会导致东乌克兰战局逆转?值得关注。
说起来，东乌克兰的战争虽然是同根同源的斯拉夫两兄弟兄弟阋墙之争，但比以色列-巴勒斯坦之争更符合男人的标准，因为这里发生的不是人体炸弹、绑架杀害平民少年之类的恐怖袭击，而是像模像样、光明正大的运动战。7月上旬乌克兰政府军节节深入的“胜利”转眼之间就变成了悲剧，看样子更像是中了东乌克兰民兵诱敌深入、分割包围之计：
乌克兰政府军大举插入俄乌边境地带，本意是想切断东乌克兰民兵与俄罗斯的联系，把他们口里的“叛军”包饺子;结果形成一字长蛇阵，反而被民兵很方便地分割合围，各个击破。7月11日，东乌克兰民兵火箭炮群一次击毁乌克兰军队第24摩步旅30辆坦克装甲车，击落乌军两架战机，充分体现了这支队伍的装备与战斗力不可低估;俄罗斯开放边境，又深合“围师必阙”之道，让被围乌克兰部队士无斗志，只想逃入俄罗斯保命。于是，我们看到乌克兰政府军第72摩步旅被击毙数百人;第24摩步旅来自乌克兰反俄情绪最浓烈、卫国战争时与纳粹合作最紧密的利沃夫，旅长帕夫留科上校已于17日丢下部队落荒而逃，失去领导的乌克兰士兵成群结队逃往俄罗斯请求收容，上百名乌克兰伤兵已被俄罗斯医院救治;……
乌克兰政府军公布的战损数据显示，7月9日至15日，乌克兰军队损失1600人左右，而这个数字多半经过压缩，因为在7月11日那场东乌克兰民兵火箭炮群一举消灭政府军30辆坦克、装甲车的战斗中，乌克兰政府宣布的死亡数字居然只有23人。关于被合围的乌克兰政府军总兵力，东乌克兰民兵一开始宣布的是5000人，但这个数字对于三个旅而言未免太少。虽然不了解乌克兰军队旅的具体编制，但知道我军机械化步兵旅大约四千人上下，少则3600余人，多则四五千。考虑到我军与苏军颇有渊源，乌克兰政府军更直接脱胎于苏军，若乌克兰政府军编制与此相似，则被合围的三个旅兵力最高估计可达1万—1.5万，有消息称这些部队占到乌克兰政府军机动兵力的1/3之多(尚待进一步考证)。进入7月以来，乌克兰政府军一直努力企图合围宣布脱离乌克兰的卢甘斯克州首府卢甘斯克市，但始终未能得手;乌克兰政府军第51旅企图从亚速海滨海港口马里乌波尔方向出击，打破包围圈，解救第72旅，也受阻于半途;……
在这种情况下，马航空难是否会导致东乌克兰战局逆转突变?我们拭目以待。须知，此前已经不止一次发生过这种葫芦提突发事件引起的战争逆转。在二战之后欧洲最大战争——波黑战争中，塞族武装本来占尽优势，结果，1994年2月5日，一发炮弹落在萨拉热窝“马尔卡莱”集贸市场，市场内平民伤亡惨重，加上电视媒体铺天盖地的报道渲染，北约顺水推舟以此为由对塞族武装发动轰炸，波黑战局就此逆转。问题是这枚炮弹虽然改变了波黑战局走势，后来的国际调查却并未找出这枚改变战局走势的炮弹来路，甚至发现这枚炮弹不可能是从塞军阵地上射出的。那么，这枚萨拉热窝炮弹究竟是怎么回事?难道是精心策划?如果是这样，那又是谁有动机也有能力策划这种事情?策划者如愿以偿，承受无妄之灾代价的又是谁?……
看着这一切，陡然想起了元人张养浩那首《山坡羊·潼关怀古》——“峰峦如聚，波涛如怒，山河表里潼关路。望西都，意踌蹰。伤心秦汉经行处，宫阙万间都做了土。兴，百姓苦!亡，百姓苦!”
哎!我们不预设立场，不凡事都往“阴谋论”上扯，但在这个世界上阴谋是确确实实存在的;多个心眼，至少有助于自我保护。有一点可以确定，在存在阴谋的世界上，其它条件相同，大国机构、国民比小国机构、国民享有更好的保护，因为阴谋者都期望以最小的麻烦达成自己的目的。
(梅新育，信笔写于2014.7.19晚，仅代表个人意见)
附录：
俄罗斯国防部副部长长安东诺夫7月19日就马航客机被击落一事，向基辅提出了“十问”：
1. 为什么基辅如此迅速断定是乌克兰东部势力击落客机的?依据何在?
2. 基辅能否向世人公布在冲突区内使用“山毛榉”导弹的全部细节，最重要的是为什么基辅要在东部部署这种型号的导弹，如果东部势力没有飞机?
3. 为什么基辅在组建国际调查委员会一事上无所作为?这个调查委员会到底何时进入工作状态?
4. 乌军方是否准备向国际专家公布其空对空和地对空导弹的所有数据?
5. 为什么乌空管部门允许客机从基辅确定的反恐行动地区上空通过?为何基辅不关闭这个区域的领空?
6. 为什么基辅在没有国际代表参与的情况下就开始研究乌克兰空管人员与MH17机组的通话记录?
7. 乌克兰是否吸取了上次乌方在黑海上空击毁俄图154客机的教训?
8. 为什么基辅在客机坠毁半小时内就分布了东部势力与俄军方勾结击落客机的电话录音?
9. 为什么乌军方隐瞒两架军机在MH17被击落空域附近出现的消息?
10. 为什么马航坠机附近，乌边防空军的5个连预警雷达开机的时间恰好在马航客机坠落前15分钟?
俄罗斯24小时英文电视频道“今日俄罗斯”网站链接及原文：
http://rt.com/news/173976-mh17-crash-questions-ukraine/
Malaysia MH17 crash: 10 questions Russia wants Ukraine to answer
Published time: July 18, 2014 20:59
Some Western states and Kiev rushed to find Russian involvement in the MH17 crash having no evidence to back their claims, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister told RT. He invited Ukraine to answer 10 questions to prove their commitment to an impartial probe.
Speaking to RT, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov has criticized Western countries for jumping to conclusions just “24 hours after the crash” while there is no evidence.
“They try to show to the whole world that we are responsible for the crash. It is very strange that without any evidence my colleagues from western media would like to find somebody who is responsible for the crash,” Antonov said. “It seems to me that this is part of information warfare which has been started against the Russian Federation and armed forces.”
READ MORE: Unverified tape released by Kiev presented as ‘proof’ E. Ukraine militia downed MH17
Instead of using the incident as the pretext for groundlessly blaming one of the sides, the catastrophe over Ukrainian sky should be used as a possibility to restart cooperation to “prevent such tragedies in the future.”
“As for me, I don’t want to use this opportunity to blame anybody. I would just like to raise few questions for my colleagues from the armed forces of Ukraine,” Antonov said. “I hope they try to answer the questions, it will be a good opportunity for us to realize where we are, whether there is a possibility for us to restart cooperation and to find who is really responsible for the tragedy.”
“Answers for these questions could help us find an opportunity to prevent such tragedies in the future,” the Deputy Defense Minister said.
TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES
1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?
2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?
3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?
4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?
5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?
6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?
7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?
8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?
9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?
10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.